This text is excerpted from the 1875 Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
where it appears near the end of Part 1 as Period 7, Section 7,
“Testimony against various other Systems existing in Ireland.”
In our own day, many other “systems” or schisms could be added to
the list. Efforts of this sort are useful
to give due warning to church members for their spiritual safety,
to make explicit the responsibility of members to abstain from attending services and sermons of false teachers,
and to reclaim those who have fallen into the errors of these systems.
This example demonstrates the plausibility of identifying and handling several of these systems
in a practical way, without developing a discussion too tedious for ordinary church members.

WHilst loving all who love Christ the Head, and are
engaged in maintaining any part of His Truth, we are
constrained to bear public testimony against systems of
error more or less dangerous and extensive.

1. UNITARIANISM.—In the strongest manner we testify
against Unitarianism, as it exists in this country, embracing
Sabellian, Arian, and Socinian sentiments, and
manifesting of late Rationalistic and Infidel tendencies.
By propounding and disseminating soul-destroying errors
respecting the Godhead—the Person of Christ—the work
of Atonement—the character and work of the Holy
Spirit—the present state of human nature—the inspiration
{131}
and authority of the Scriptures—and the future condition
and destiny of men, it exhibits itself to be a mere
system of natural religion. Denying the fundamental
articles of revealed truth, it removes out of view all that
is distinctive of the glorious Gospel of the Saviour grace;
and is guilty of subverting the sinner’s hope of salvation,
and, at the same time, of smoothing the way to open
infidelity and universal scepticism.

2. ANABAPTISM.—We testify against the Anabaptists,
or, as they style themselves, Baptists, because, by denying
that the infant seed of professed believing parents are
proper subjects of baptism, they break the connection
divinely established between the New Testament Church
and the Old, in which the infant children of God’s people
were recognized as members, and received the seal of
God’s gracious covenant. They also take away a precious
privilege from believing parents and their children—practically
reject the command given by the Saviour in
the Apostolic Commission requiring us to disciple all
nations, baptising and teaching them—are opposed to
the practice of the Apostles and the primitive Church of
baptizing whole households—and exclude from the seal
of the Covenant those who are expressly included in its
promise.—We testify likewise against the Anabaptists on
account of their teaching that immersion is the only
allowable mode of baptism—inasmuch as this dogma
receives no support from the Scriptural terms employed
to declare the manner of administering the ordinances—as
immersion is not in harmony with the practice recorded
in the New Testament, and is inapplicable to and unsuitable
for the state and circumstances of the Church universally
diffused throughout the earth, and is in opposition
to the symbolical import of the ordinance as referring to
the gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Anabaptists,
too, have set aside the Presbyterial government and order
of the Church, following generally the Congregational
form; and, to a large extent, the ordinance of praise is
corrupted by the use of uninspired hymns. On such
grounds, we testify against the system as being opposed
to the faith and practice of the Church, as it has existed
{132}
in all ages, as being intensely sectarian, and as inflicting
real privation and injury upon a large and interesting
class—the infant members of the Church of Christ.

3. CONGREGATIONALISM.—The system of Congregationalism,
or Independency, assumes that each separate
assembly of Christians meeting in one place for worship,
is a church, separate from and independent of all others—that
the whole power of government and discipline is
lodged in the hands of church members—that ministers
and elders have no spiritual authority—and that there is
no warrant for Presbyterial assemblies and courts of
appeal. In all these respects it is opposed to the order
instituted by Christ and established by His apostles, in
the primitive Christian Church. Inconsistent with the
unity of the church as one body, it divests ecclesiastical
officers of the power which Christ has given them for
rule as well as for edification, and deprives the members
of the church of the right of appeal to higher courts.
Congregationalists moreover, reject and denounce creeds
and confessions, meaning such creeds and confessions as
have been carefully prepared and adopted by the church
as subordinate standards and tests of orthodoxy for
the whole body—groundlessly asserting that these are
thrust into the place of God’s Word, and tyrannically
enforced on the consciences of men.[1] At the same time,
they themselves exact from ministers at ordination, and
from others, on admission to membership, a public creed
or confession of faith, of the orthodoxy of which the
church is supposed to judge at the time without any fixed
standard, and thereupon to grant or refuse admission.
These extemporized creeds, which are as numerous as
the members of their church, must, in general, be very
crude, incomplete, and unsatisfactory productions—being
liable to most of all the abuses, without the undeniable
advantages of a common and accepted confession
of the united faith of the church, based upon and subordinate
to the Word of God, which alone is the infallible
rule of faith and practice. This system cannot maintain
doctrinal purity in the Church, or restore it when corrupted;
and it precludes combined ecclesiastical action
{133}
for extending the kingdom of Christ. We gladly admit
that the doctrines of evangelical religion are in general
held by Congregationalists, and there is considerable
regard shown to spirituality of communion; yet it is
notorious that loose sentiments and even fundamental
errors respecting the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the
nature and extent of the Atonement, and other doctrines,
are taught in Independent churches.

4. METHODISM.—This system, which was originated
in England by John Wesley, in the year 1729, and propagated
by his coadjutors and followers, has spread to a
large extent throughout this country. Commencing in
the Church of England, it claimed at first to aim only at
the revival and greater efficiency of its worship. The
various changes and divisions that have taken place
among Methodists have made its connection with the
National Church less intimate than that which was contemplated
by its founder. Methodism is still to be regarded
as favourable to Prelacy rather than protesting
against it. It embraces the errors of Arminianism.
Dishonoring the finished work of the Saviour, by the
dogma of an indefinite atonement; detracting from the
glory of the Spirit, by teaching the freedom of the human
will in conversion, and that there is inherent power in the
sinner to receive savingly the offers of the Gospel; and
laying undue stress upon uncertain frames and feelings,
it excites prejudice against the truth and injures the
Gospel system. The government and arrangements of
the Methodist Societies are modelled by human policy,
and are not in conformity with any Scriptural prescription.
They have, therefore, in many cases issued in
despotism, taking away Christian rights and liberties both
from ministers and people. This system undervalues a
proper call and appointment to the ministry, and gives
the largest scope to the unscriptural practice of lay-preaching.
The worship of the Methodist Body is characterized
by the almost total disuse of inspired Psalms, and
by the use of hymns, many of which are erroneous and
deceptive; and its obvious design and tendency is to encourage
undue excitement and a dangerous sensationalism.
{134}

5. PLYMOUTHISM.—This members of this sect, who are
generally known by the name DARBYITES, from one of
their leaders, or PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, from the place
where, in 1830, they had their origin, assume to themselves
the title of Christian Brethren. Like others who
loudly denounce all human creeds and confessions, and
yet require every brother to make his own confession,
they have no common standard of doctrine for which
they can be held responsible. It is, therefore, difficult to
ascertain exactly what are their peculiar views. In some
points they resemble Quakers, in others they are at one
with the Baptists, and generally they hold millenarian
views of the second coming and kingdom of Christ. On
nearly all the leading doctrines of religion they teach
erroneous or one-side and exaggerated opinions, and by
these mainly, as well as by their intensely sectarian and
proselytizing spirit, are they distinguished from other
Christians. The doctrine, that the Moral Law is no rule
of duty to believers, or binding upon them at all, which
is Antinomianism—that repentance is unnecessary—that
Sanctification is imparted and perfected at once—that
Faith is the assurance of personal salvation—that Prayer
is not the duty of unbelievers—and that believers should
not ask for pardon, or for the Holy Spirit, are commonly
taught by them. By such doctrines they have separated
themselves from the faith of the Reformed churches,
and must be regarded as dangerous and schismatical.
We testify against them, moreover, for their rejection of
the Scriptural office of the Christian ministry, recognizing
as ministers all whom they consider to be sufficiently
gifted—for their denial of the duty of the church to support
the ministry according to the ordinance of Christ
and of the sanctity and obligation of the Christian Sabbath—and
for their uncharitable and sectarian spirit, in
refusing to admit, as Christian churches, those who do
not embrace their extreme views, and who are opposed
to their disorderly and unscriptural proceedings.

6. MILLENARIANISM.—Against a gross and literal
system of prophetic interpretation, which has obtained
chiefly at periods of religious excitement—anciently designated
{135}
CHILIASM, and in modern times, MILLENARIANISM
[or Premillennialism]—we regard ourselves as solemnly called to
testify. This system, which is publicly taught from the
pulpit and the press by ministers of the Establishment,
and by Presbyterians and Nonconformists, maintains that,
previous to the Millennium, the Redeemer will come personally
to judge the quick and the dead; that He will
then raise either the martyrs who suffered for His sake,
or the whole of the saints who had lived before, and will
reign with them at Jerusalem, in visible majesty and
glory, for a thousand years. Contending for the literal
interpretation of prophecies that refer to the last times,
they furthermore maintain that a new and enlarged
temple shall be built at Jerusalem—that animal sacrifices
shall be revived, as a eucharistical [thanksgiving] commemoration of the
atonement finished; and some even hold that our present
Bible, which they say is fitted only to a suffering state
of the church, will be superseded by a new revelation
suited to her triumphant condition.

We testify against such sentiments, as opposed to the
general faith and hope of the church, and of most mischievous
tendency. The doctrine of the pre-millennial
advent and personal reign of Christ on earth is based
upon false principles of Scripture interpretation, and is
plainly opposed to those passages which represent His
second coming as immediately connected with the general
resurrection and the last judgment, the universal conflagration,
and the allotment of the righteous and wicked to
their eternal state of reward and punishment. This
system is manifestly inconsistent with the spirituality of
the Mediatorial dominion; and its whole tendency is to
fill Christians with carnal expectations—to revive the
exploded opinions and rites of Judaism, and to bring
back the church to the “beggarly elements,” [Gal. 4.9,] from which
Christ has, by His atoning death, and the mission of
His Spirit, for ever made free. The Millenarian
system is not only detrimental to the unity of the church,
and the progress of true spirituality, but obstructive to
Christian efforts for the universal establishment of the
Redeemer’s kingdom in the earth. By declaring, as its
{136}
advocates do, that the design of the present dispensation
is not the conversion of the world and the ingathering of
the Jews, but “only the calling of an elect people out of
the Gentiles,” and that the conversion of Jew and Gentile
will be effected only by the Redeemer’s personal
appearance and reign on the earth, the church’s great
Commission is virtually set aside, the motives to exertion
for the world’s evangelization are removed, and the many
precious promises that guarantee its success are rendered
vain and delusive. Discarding such views, our duty is to
labour and pray for the conversion of all nations, and for
the establishment of the Redeemer’s kingdom over all
the earth—looking for His Millennial coming in the glory
of His Word and Spirit, and in the power of his judgments
on Antichristian, Mohammedan, Pagan, and all
opposing systems—and for the second coming, and
“glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour,” [Titus 2.13,]
to judge the world in righteousness, and to terminate the
present dispensation, by receiving the redeemed to heaven,
and consigning the wicked to everlasting destruction.[2]

7. VOLUNTARYISM.—The principle that the State, as
such, has nothing to do with religion, and that the Church
and State should be entirely separate for all moral and
religious purposes, we condemn as utterly at variance
with the contendings and attainments of the Scottish
Reformers, as opposed to the Headship of the Mediator
over the nations, the universal supremacy of His Word,
as calculated to exert a baleful influence on religion and
morality, and as having a tendency to prevent the nations
from returning to a Scriptural standard of civil government.
In relation to the small bodies of SECEDERS
whether in a separate organization, or merged into the
United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, we regard the
original grounds of our fathers’s condemnation of their
Testimony as still remaining unchanged. There are,
besides, additional grounds of testifying against such as
accept endowment from a corrupt Government—given
on a principle that is essentially infidel and indiscriminate—and
against those who, in palpable contradiction
of the original principles of the Secession, avow Voluntary
{137}
sentiments. While we rejoice that there are any, however
few, that refuse to accept endowments, which are
conferred equally on the advocates of error and those who
maintain evangelical truth; and while we sincerely lament
that obstacles exist to prevent the closest union among
the professed friends of the Reformation, we yet regard
the principle of the entire separation of the Church from
an immoral civil system, and, at the same time, the principle
that rulers and nations, in their public capacity, are
nevertheless bound to act in professed subjection to the
law of Christ, as essential to a permanent basis for union
and ecclesiastical fellowship.

8. LATITUDINARIANISM.—The Latitudinarian principle
is, that a few plain and general articles in religion are
essential or fundamental, and that all else is unimportant
or circumstantial, and should in no wise affect ecclesiastical
communion. Those who adopt this principle call
loudly for charity and union in the Church; and denounce
a faithful testimony as bigotry, and intolerance.
This scheme is plausible, and well fitted to mislead the
unthinking and unwary; and in an age when strict religious
principle is disliked, and there is much profession
without corresponding godly practice, it seems likely to
become more widely diffused. Notwithstanding its pretensions
to liberality, it is both destructive and intolerant,
rejecting as it does the crown rights and glory of the
Redeemer, and the imperative claims of Divine truth, in
which the best interests of human society are involved.
By undervaluing truths clearly revealed, and duties
plainly inculcated, and by resorting to the arbitrary and
ever-varying distinctions between doctrines essential and
non-essential, it sets aside Divine authority, and thus tends
gradually to weaken and undermine Christianity itself.
By pleading for open communion, and, at the same time,
upholding separate religious denominations, [as a normal and proper order,] it perpetuates
division in the Church, and prevents that perfect union
which is promised, when “there shall be one Lord, and
His name one in all the earth.” [Zech. 14.9.]

Those who advocate the Latitudinarian scheme differ
in their views, as to the extent to which union should be
{138}
carried. Some would represent the difference between
Pedobaptists and Antipedobaptists—between Calvinists
and Arminians—and between the various unendowed
Church as unimportant; others would embrace in one
broad National Church all the different sections of Protestantism;
and some would even make the difference
between Protestants and Romanists no barrier to union
and fellowship. With persons of Latitudinarian sentiments,
the utmost repugnance is manifested against a
Scriptural testimony in behalf of the Redeemer’s royal
prerogatives and the proper application of its principles,
in condemning Erastianism, and in promoting purity in
the communion of the Church, and the due observance
of all divinely appointed ordinances. It is observable
that this scheme is generally advocated by those who are
in connection with the larger ecclesiastical bodies, that
are characterized by corruption in worship, and laxity in
practice, and that seek to draw into fellowship with them
smaller and purer bodies. Even in the least objectionable
form in which the Latitudinarian scheme is held in
our day, its obvious tendency is to lead persons to undervalue
and reject one truth after another, and to make
little or no account of the progress of error and corruption,
provided what are vaguely termed the fundamentals
of religion are still preserved.

In opposition to such lax and dangerous views, our
duty is—“Whereto we have already attained, to walk by
the same rule, to mind the same thing.” [Phil. 3.16.] The Apostolic
command, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, is to
“withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3.6.)
Zion’s exalted King offers the highest
encouragement to those who faithfully maintain His truth
amidst opposition and reproach. “Because thou hast
kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from
the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the
world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold,
I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no
man take thy crown.” (Rev. 3.10,11.)

Footnotes:

1.
Though these descriptions may have generally fit with those
called Congregationalists in 19th century Ireland, it is noted
that not all Independents historically bore the same character.
This should not be surprising, since a variety of beliefs is the
inevitable out-growth of their Independency.
On the subject of Confessions of Faith the reader may see the Preface
to their Savoy Declaration of 1658, which gives approval to Confessions
of Faith for some purposes, although already tending in the direction
described above. Notwithstanding, some Congregationalists
did see the clear dangers of a weak implementation of Confessions of Faith,
and were ready to receive them as “tests of orthodoxy”
and “terms of communion” just as much as Presbyterians of
the 1600s and 1700s. An example may be seen in the
“Letter
to Scripturista” written by Joseph Bellamy and published in 1761.—JTKer.